It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

You might want to accept it as the gospel truth, but you do so in complete ignorance because you haven't bothered to check the credibility of a source that you agree with.
Hello, I've been saying that I have been studying the controversies on the Trinity for the past thirty years.
I have a nice collection of the works of Athanasius and what I can find on Arius, mostly from Athanasius himself, in denouncing Arius, since he had all of Arius' books destroyed.
Everything Pagels says about Athanasius fits right in with what I have found out myself.
Debating the Trinity is why I ever came to this forum in the first place, 5 1/2 years ago, and I have involved myself in all the debates on the subject, here, since.
edit on 30-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


So you reject that the Israelites were once Gods' chosen people from Abraham to John the Baptist ?
And you think the faithful men and women of old of Jewish linage did not worship the one true Almighty God ?

edit on 30-4-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





Seems like you have an iron in the fire yourself.


Perhaps that's because it's clear to me that Jesus was an Essene. When people attempt to promote or discuss this theory and present evidence, some Christians' heads explode!

I raised in Pentecostal Churches that taught that Jesus was an Essene, and up until a couple years ago, when I encountered individuals here on ATS, I had never met or spoke to anyone who opposed that theory.


edit on 30-4-2013 by windword because: more than one church



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

So you reject that the Israelites were once Gods' chosen people from Abraham to John the Baptist ?
Yes. If you do a Bible word search using the search term, "Gods' chosen people", all the hits are in the New Testament and are talking about Christians.
Abraham was chosen to leave Ur and to go to the Land of Canaan.
Issac was chosen over Ishmael.
Jacob was chosen over Esau.
Paul said that God had a special love for the people descended from them, for the sake of those Patriarchs.
That does not validate the religion that ended up being handed out at the time of Jesus' ministry or the time of the Apostles.

And the faithful men and women of old of Jewish linage did not worship the one true Almighty God ?
You are believing in something that didn't really exist.
There was some connection, for whatever reason, that had Jesus be born a Jew, but I don't think it has to do with the current form of Judaism.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

I raised in Pentecostal Churches that taught that Jesus was an Essene, and up until a couple years ago, when I encountered individuals here on ATS, I had never met or spoke to anyone who opposed that theory.
Sorry about that but you eventually need to come to grips with the fact that you were a cult member and that you need to go through a process of deprogramming.
I'm doing the same thing, being born a fourth generation Seventh Day Adventist.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Oh, I left the church cult over 40 years ago. And yes, I'm still recovering from the religious brainwashing, fear and manipulation that was imposed on me.

I have long since abandoned any indoctrination of Jesus being God, born of a virgin, a human sacrifice that was required to purchase our sins or that he was resurrected from the dead.

There was, however, a charismatic movement that spawned Christianity, and it is still my belief that it's origin lies with the Essene community, their rituals, philosophies and messianic expectations. The Biblical figure of Jesus may, indeed, be a composite of several religious figures of the era, that were martyred, during the last days of the Jewish temple.

According to Josephus, at least 6000 Jews were crucified on crosses on the hills outside the walls of Jerusalem during the Siege of Jerusalem. The Jewish religion was ceremoniously crucified by the Romans during that period. That's highly symbolic, in my opinion, in the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the birth of Christianity.

I see Essene philosophy and ritual in many, not all, of the teachings of Jesus, so I believe that at least one of the Jesus personas was an Essene teacher.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, as I reject most of Christianity's dogma. But I am an avid mystic and student of Jewish mysticism, as well as other metaphysical philosophies.



edit on 30-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by palg1
 

Without the perfect divinity of Christ expressed in this manner the ‘raison d’être’ of Christianity vaporises along with the hope that Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross could give us our freedom.

I understand that this was an argument made against docetism, but let's say for the sake of argument that docetism poses no current threat to Christianity, so we can disregard that aspect for now, what then would be the reason for this "perfect divinity"?
And, how do you think that Jesus did set us free, exactly? What was the mechanism used by Jesus of bringing about our freedom?
It looks like you are actually arguing against an orthodox Trinity, and for Modalism.
edit on 30-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


If we remove the "perfect divinity" of Christ as a prerequisite Jesus becomes no more than a really nice guy who cured some people and harassed the elitists of the day. His words would serve no more than an example for good behaviour. He becomes a mere man inspired by God and who God works through. His actions are no longer his own and the examples he gave become purely the actions of a subservient human. The only way His actions keep their meaning is if he uses the free-will tied into his humanity to act on the Godly nature that dwells within him and ties Him to the judaic history. We cannot therefore argue for a docetitic nature and also say that Jesus is the waited for Messiah.

On the subject of Modalism, I am not a proponant of it in any shape or form. I expressed it simply as a transitory theory used by the Fathers of the Church who briefly expressed God as having three different modes of appearance. It led to a better understanding through the concept of consubstantiation.

As for the act of setting us free... Without the "perfect divinity" the sacrafice he made on the cross would have served no purpose. With His divinity established, that sacrafice becomes the means by which all the sins of man can be forgiven. He took the bullet for us as it were. This openned the door to an everlasting life not only for the jewish nation, but anounced a hope for all of mankind. Without his death and resurrection His message of hope would have weathered like so much sandstone.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 
I have a pretty strong aversion to Jewish mysticism, and to the other products of the Dark Ages.
Christianity took off because it had an appeal to the idea of freedom, from other oppressive religions and what you have to do to be initiated and to maintain your membership in them.
It was based on faith.
Of course all that was ruined by the merger of church and state that hijacked the name of Christianity.
I'm interested in getting back to it's original idea.
You probably are too but I don't think your way is supportable and is based more on a fabricated myth about how things were.

edit on 30-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by palg1
 

His actions are no longer his own . .

He never claimed that they were.
Sorry. I'll have to re-read your posts and get back to you later.
I have to go right now.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Just to clear up a few points made about Modalism/Oneness.

We do not teach that God prayed to Himself. We teach that the prayers of Jesus was a man praying to God, just like any other man prays to God.

We do not teach a God with multiple personality disorder. In fact it is the trinitarians who claim three personalities are one God.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


So by extension then the Hebrew scriptures have an unequal validity in authenticity from your perspective compared to the New Testament or Greek scriptures ?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Paul said that God had a special love for the people descended from them, for the sake of those Patriarchs.


The problem I have with this statement is that a loving god would never put one of his creations over another. He's supposed to love each and every one of us equally. That's another reason I don't put too much stock into the OT, because the Hebrews and Israelites claimed to be god's "chosen ones".

God would never play favorites in my opinion.

Also, how can you not accept the OT but still accept Paul? Paul relied on the OT heavily to present his case that Jesus was the Messiah.
edit on 30-4-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I disagree that Jewish mysticism is a product of the Dark Ages. I think it is represented in the Torah, as understood by certain Jewish sects, like the Essenes, and was taught, to the chagrin of the Pharisees, by Jesus, freely to the masses.

Are you familiar with Stan Tenen or the Meru Foundation? I've been a follower / student since the early '80's. Compelling stuff there! www.youtube.com...
edit on 30-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Really? She clearly proved you wrong, man up to it. It's okay to be wrong every once in a while.
Yes, really.
I read what I consider reputable scholars and I know they do not agree with the fantasy version of who the Essenes were or that they left any writings.
Just because you can quote a web site that agrees with you, it does not 'prove' you are right.
edit on 30-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Kind of like how quoting things from the bible don't prove you are right. Right?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


A realy enlightening book that goes much deeper is 'The Problem of God' which I had references in my work. His work goes alot further than I could and I have found new insights every time have re read it.

Murray, John Courtney. The Problem of God. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1964.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Compelling stuff there!
I have to disagree with everything you wrote in your post.
I see no usefulness in what the guy is saying in the videos and it is actually ridiculous to me. One of the annoying things for me in reading Hebrew is all the variations in font styles, where I am constantly relearning how to read the letters.
The guy is trying to make out that the shape of the letters have meaning and that is insane, based on the differences in the styles of making the letters. Also, the letters are not really the original Hebrew but a script adopted from the Babylonians.
edit on 30-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by palg1
 

Murray, John Courtney. The Problem of God.
I looked at all the comments on it on Amazon. I'll probably have it in ten days or something. It was written when existentialism was in vogue and they have gone a couple steps past that since then.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Kind of like how quoting things from the bible don't prove you are right. Right?

Copying and pasting from web sites is not very impressive to me. People actually need to make a point and quote some actual references.
Anyway, quoting scripture doesn't make anyone right either, you still have to make an actual argument and then defend it, otherwise it is worthless.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

God would never play favorites in my opinion.
He did when it came to a Messiah. That is a fact. The idea that is usually given is that the Messiahship is by definition a position set aside for the descendents of David. That is favoritism for the sake of David, who God liked, for whatever reason.
Now Jesus fit the requirements but did not get happy when someone called him "son of David". He seemed to reluctantly go along with it but took no pride in it. He was more interested in the heavenly aspect, that there was somehow a son of David already in mind, who existed already and has the status of a god.

Also, how can you not accept the OT but still accept Paul? Paul relied on the OT heavily to present his case that Jesus was the Messiah.
I don't know that he did. He was mainly trying to explain why he happened to show up in the way he did. He didn't come at it as if there was any question if he was in fact the Messiah.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by palg1
 

The Tridentine Notion of God
[color=DarkSlateGray]..I don't know if you want a detailed, line by line critique.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..My guess would be that you got a good grade for your research paper since I would also guess that it was a Catholic school where you were handing this in.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..I think you filled the bill for being a good, properly brainwashed cult member, where I mean the Catholic Church as a cult.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..It generally shows a superficial understanding of the situation and also the biases that come with institutionalized theology in all its orthodoxy.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..I don't think the trinity was a notion that developed over time, but seems to be understood in the Gospels.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..I think if there was a problem early on, it would have been a relegation to irrelevancy of any other god than Jesus.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..It would not have been so much a struggle to find how Jesus relates to God, but how God relates to Jesus.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Jesus was worshipped and it started with the first day he ever showed himself in public.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..What was going on in the fourth century I would describe as insanity, where people like Athanasius were obsessed with things that today we couldn't care less about, like having a perfect symmetry of a triad.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..This is where the "orthodox" heresy comes in, with manipulation of belief to create conformity with ideas that make no sense, or having any relationship with existing belief, or with the New Testament.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..You need to get this straight, that Arius was a trinitarian.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Arius did not think that Jesus was created. The man, Jesus, would have been created just like everyone else in the world when he appeared as a baby from his mother, Mary.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..The preincarnate Jesus was not a human, but a god, who lived in heaven, who came out of God, the Father. He was begotten, like the NT says. This was what Athanasius did not like, objecting by saying that if that was true, then there was a time when Jesus did not exist.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Arius said that Jesus was begotten before the universe was created, so there was no time and space, so it was in some pre-creation eternity before time.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..The other weird rule they made up for God was that God could never change. If there was ever a time, Athanasius argued, when God was not the Father, then God would have changed by becoming a father when Jesus was begotten, so we must say that Jesus was not begotten.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..So you have this insanity that prevailed that maybe seems normal for people who believe that Mary was always Jesus' mother, and never actually gave birth to him.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..The Catholic version of the Trinity makes the same sense, which is only acceptable to brainwashed cult members with no ability to think for themselves.

edit on 30-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join